Talk:Western University of Health Sciences

Western University of Health Sciences has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 16, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Western University of Health Sciences was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 31, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Westernuwriter (talk · contribs)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of medical schools in the United States#California|Medical schools in California]] Anchor List of medical schools in the United States#California links to a specific web page: California. The anchor (#California) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Western University of Health Sciences/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a skim read of this article, and while parts of the article are fine (namely the referencing), other parts make this a quick-fail candidate.:

The campus section is just noting recent developments rather than actually talking about the campus as a whole, and needs a complete restructuring.
Remove the mission section. The accreditation section also seems unnecessary.
For that matter, there's several parts missing from this article that a University article would need to be a GA. Namely, there's nothing about the academics at all. Read through a few of the articles at Category:GA-Class Universities articles to get an idea of what to add in the article.

Once the article is restructured, it may then be near nominating for GA status. Wizardman 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. At this time, I have made several of the changes that you suggested. I will need to work on the campus section at a later time. When it is ready, I will nominate the article again. I appreciate your help. Rytyho usa (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the campus section, completely restructuring it, and adding more on the campus as a whole, etc. I have also made several other improvements to the article. Please let me know if you have any further feedback! Thank you. Rytyho usa (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Article promoted - 16 July 2014.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Western University of Health Sciences/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

Most of the content is in good shape, but there are some glaring things that need some attention:

You refer to COMP twice in the lead, but never actually show that it is the same as the College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific until the "History" section. This is confusing.
In the history section, you talk about the first year of classes for the college of pharmacy. Is this the proper name of the pharmacy college? If so, it should be capitalized. If not, why wouldn't use the proper name instead like we do for the other 8 colleges when mentioned.
In the Academics and accreditation section, you state "Each of the programs is graduate,..." a better word than graduate would be post-baccalaureate.
In the second sentence of the section on Interprofessional education, you say 2007 twice. The second time, I would say "later that year."
In the Campus section, about halfway through, it says completion is expected for July 2014. Its now July 2014, do we have updates? If it is within 3 weeks of completion (rest of July), there is usually a ribbon cutting scheduled. If the date has been moved, we should update the article accordingly.
You don't need to use italics to differentiate "Health Science Center" from "Health Professions center Center."

That is my review from the first read-through. I would like to read it again after updates/changes are made. I'd also like to offer a chance for @Wizardman: to offer any advice as they responded to the first review this past March. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the suggested changes. There was a ribbon cutting ceremony, just a couple weeks ago, so I added that to the article. Thank you for the feedback! Rytyho usa (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at that paragraph again. It says it was completed in June 2014, but the end says it will be completed in 2014? TLSuda (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I corrected that sentence as well. Rytyho usa (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with everything, but I want to give Wizardman a couple more days to contribute. If he doesn't in two days, we will move forward. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article a skim (no time to do a full read through alas) and it does look like it's in far better shape than when I reviewed it the first time through. Wizardman 02:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barring no other issues that have arisen, I am happy to promote this article to GA status! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent! Thank you for your feedback; it was much appreciated. Rytyho usa (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

updated stats and corrections

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I work in the Public Affairs office of Western University of Health Sciences. In reviewing this page, I noticed there are some areas that need updating. I am new to Wikipedia (at least the editing part of it) and I want to ensure I do not violate conflict of interest guidelines.

I have two suggested updates/corrections.

Under History in the final paragraph:

The Chronicle of Higher Education named WesternU as a great college to work for every year from 2012 through ~~2016~~ 2017, and has been on the Honor Roll for four years.[26][27][28][29]

Citation: ^[1]

Under Campus (sixth paragraph): The western range of campus contains the ~~Weinberg~~ Rodney P. Wineberg Center, home to research administration and laboratories, in addition to the Pumerantz Library, and Anderson Tower (formerly known as the Chase Bank building). The ~~Weinberg~~ Wineberg Center contains 8,550 square feet dedicated to research.[68] The ~~Weinberg~~ Wineberg Center building was originally a JCPenney.[32]

Citation (for the correct spelling): ^[2]

Thank you for your consideration.

Westernuwriter (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your suggestions on how to improve the article; I have updated the article accordingly. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out. Rytyho usa (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Edit warring to remove information about no confidence vote in the president

An unregistered editor is edit warring to (a) remove information about a no confidence vote in the university's president and (b) place it in the middle of the history section, out of chronological order. Why would we mention a vote of no confidence and not include any information about why it took place? And why would we stick in the middle of the history section, out of order? ElKevbo (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this content belongs at the end of the history section (as the article is currently written), since this would adhere to the current organization of chronological ordering of events (makes sense for a history section). While I do not see that vagueness or ambiguity is an issue with the move, I also see no reason why it should be moved to the middle of the history section. If the IP user feels that additional information from the cited source should be included in the article, I would encourage them expand the article accordingly. Rytyho usa (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.chronicle.com/interactives/greatcolleges17

[2] ttp://www.westernu.edu/facilities/facilities-building-addresses/

[1]

[2]